Report 1840
Report #1840 Skillset: Shadowbeat Skill: Crowcaw Org: Glomdoring Status: Submitted Feb 2018 Problem: Crowcaw (at a cost of 2p) currently gives two masked afflictions from stupidity, epilepsy, confusion and paralysis with a stun. It does burst damage when sub 25% mana, but its the afflicting aspect I'd like to look at with this report. As of the moment, crowcaw has two related issues: 1. it does not smart afflict, and 2. it appears that it may be able to double up on the affliction delivered, though I've only observed this in testing on a second crowcaw, meaning this might just be an extension of problem 1. Essentially, crowcaw 1 could give stupidity and confusion. If the target fails to cure both, crowcaw 2 could then roll the same two affs and not give any afflictions at all. This punishes actually sticking afflictions: making the ability less worth using the better you're doing, which is counter intuitive. 6 R: 2 Solution #1: Make crowcaw smart afflict. It will not give afflictions the target already has and will always give different afflictions if possible (i.e. if they already have three of the four possible affs, it would naturally only give one). Make crowcaw cost 3p when doing its bonus effect (damage against those with sub 25% of maximum mana) rather than the standard 2p. 2 R: 7 Solution #2: Make the afflictions delivered selectable on the user's end, to put potential redundancy down to user choice rather than a dice roll. PERFORM . This is an upgrade on an opening crowcaw however, so I'd rather go with solution 1 or 3. 9 R: 1 Solution #3: Solution 1, but make the second affliction delivered by crowcaw unmasked. (So 1 masked, 1 unmasked). Player Comments: ---on 2/10 @ 12:33 sets as pending ---on 2/11 @ 00:12 writes: I don't think Harbingers are currently in need of any buffs. CrowCaw already does quite a lot for the 2 power cost, including a decent stun and a decent amount of bleeding. While it isn't the greatest 1v1 skill, its effects are all desirable in team fights. This is even all taken in isolation of the rest of the Harbinger kit. Let's not forget that Harbingers have the best passive song effects as well. ---on 2/11 @ 03:20 writes: Solution 1 only ---on 2/11 @ 07:05 writes: Given that affliction stacking is already weakened in general in their pools, and a move to more smart afflicting has been taken across multiple classes I am fine with solution 1 only. I would like to see more smart afflicting in this new meta than less. ---on 2/12 @ 01:16 writes: I sympathise with the "all skills like this should be smart-afflicting" idea, but I also agree that Shadowbeat isn't hurting for power in group combat and things like NightshadeBlues should be addressed sooner rather than later. If I had to, I'd support solution 1 while increasing the power cost to 3p, bringing it in line with other analog songs: Starhymn PrincessFarewell, Loralaria Skysforzando, Wildarrane CairnLargo and Minstrelry ShotNote. The Necroscream analog, QueensLament, can be considered to cost 3p because a Cacophonist should always be using Dyscrasia. ---on 2/12 @ 17:14 writes: I'd support a 3 power cost on crow caw on a sub 25% mana target (shamelessly stolen from report 1367). I wouldn't on the standard effect mostly because I don't feel a basic modernisation necessitates it. ---on 2/12 @ 20:55 writes: I am fine with Solution 1, and the increased power cost on the burst damage is also agreeable. ---on 2/13 @ 02:39 writes: It is outside the report specifically, but there's really no reason CrowCaw should be 2p when similar songs across the other skillsets are 3p. ---on 2/14 @ 05:31 writes: I do not believe this is necessary. Crowcaw simply does too much for two, maybe even three power. The closest music analog is Skysforzando which does a disrupt, 2 unmasked smart afflictions, and IF a gem is attached some volume of timewarp for 3p. Support for 1 on the condition that Crowcaw becomes 3p and the afflictions are unmasked, or if Crowcaw becomes 3p and one of the two afflictions is always epilepsy as per the original design. I'm of the opinion that this should become again elevated by 1p if the damage component fires. ---on 2/14 @ 09:29 writes: Support for crow caw smart afflicting. 2 power for standard usage. 3 power for boosted effect. This put it in line with other bard song effects with conditional requirements. 2 power for standard effects 3 power for boosted effects. ---on 2/14 @ 11:15 writes: Please explain how SkySforzando, CairnLargo, PrincessFarewell, and ShotNote are in line with that statement. Thanks. ---on 2/14 @ 11:16 writes: Actually, given the "condition" for QueensLament costing 3p, actually costing power as well, I'd like to hear how that one fits too. ---on 2/14 @ 13:18 writes: PrincessFarewell is 3 power for a single blackout and 8700 damage burst set up. Crowcaw is 2 power for a stun, 2 afflictions and 350 bleed(equiv to . Shotnote is 2 afflictions a stun and a decent ego drain ego. The concept of crowcaw being 2 is that its bleed effect is much smaller than princessfarewells damage boost. If you want to make them more similar though you could I guess you could go down the route that Crowcaw should be made 3 power and increase its bleed to be in line with PrincessFarewell's damage boost for sure. Possibly Make Crowcaw do enough bleed to be equivilant to the 8700 damage burst. If you want it to be comparable. ---on 2/14 @ 13:52 writes: I mentioned to Maligorn my thoughts re: power bard songs that some of the ones that are currently 3p should be less, but that's not something to get into in this report. I appreciate people's stances on the situation that if all other bard songs are 3p crowcaw should be too: I won't disagree. My argument is essentially some of those songs should not be 3p in the first place, which is of course an opinion that will be contentious. If that is the admin's preferred status quo though I'm happy for it to be 3p - I'd simply personally rather some other songs were adjusted down to 2p as well. ---on 2/14 @ 15:06 writes: I think I can agree with the above statement. If we intend to shift towards a lower power tendancy I'd be more than happy to accept that for Skysforzando, as well, and work towards giving it a conditional 3p aspect. I think this report is a good place to decide upon that, one way or another. I'm still not sold on both the afflictions being masked, however. ---on 2/14 @ 15:38 writes: I have updated solutions based on comments. I have maintained the current solution 2 as solution 2 instead of moving it to solution 3 so as to preserve the previous comments. ---on 2/14 @ 15:48 writes: I can support the solutions, with my above comments in mind. ---on 2/14 @ 23:38 writes: As I mentioned on Envoyt, I am personally not a fan of smart afflicting - I think it makes a skill too easy, too reliable, too spammable to perfect effect. Compare to other systems (monk and poisons are my go to, of course) where stacking afflictions is the fundamental basis of what makes the class go, and you have to do it all manually (with a few rare cases where a kata action has a secondary effect on a limb already hit, like limb mutilation and a few others). I know, this isn't about monks - but my mindset is to make skill valuable, reward class mastery, and Solution 2 does that better than Solution 1, even if it does make the opening stronger. That said, I realize smart afflicting is a thing, including in my own org, so if it's a thing, maybe it should be a thing here too. I just think Solution 2 type skills make for a better game. ---on 2/15 @ 00:16 writes: I share the opinion that all of the bard songs should cost 3p and give 3p worth of benefit, and disagree with Ejderha about smart afflicting being bad. There's different kinds of class mastery, and imo it's okay for bards to have smart affliction and to reward skillfulness and mastery elsewhere in the skillset (ie with deathsongs, deafness management, correct use of tertiaries). Monks and warriors don't have as many active skills from their secondary/tertiary skills, so they need to get their complexity (and finesse!) from knighthood/kata itself. Preference is 1>3>2>0. ---on 2/15 @ 00:17 writes: Thoughts on a 3p version of sol2? ---on 2/16 @ 20:32 writes: I really like solution 3!